1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff against the defendant C corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below.

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. On January 9, 2018, the Plaintiff’s assertion D entered into a contract with Defendant C, which entered into and completed the instant construction work with the content that D, among the land owned by Defendant B, performed the construction cost of KRW 12 million for KRW 412,00,000 (hereinafter “instant construction cost”). As the Plaintiff transferred the instant claim for the construction cost on March 13, 2018, the Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the construction cost of KRW 12,00,000 and delay damages.

Even if Defendant B did not grant the right of representation to Defendant C regarding the conclusion of the instant timber construction contract, D believed that Defendant C had the right of representation and concluded the instant timber construction contract. As such, Defendant B bears the obligation to pay the instant construction cost in accordance with the legal doctrine of expression agency.

In addition, in light of the fact that the value of the land owned by Defendant B has increased as a punishment act under the instant timber construction contract, Defendant B is also liable for paying the said construction cost as the employer of Defendant C.

B. Determination 1) First, as to whether Defendant C entered into the instant timber construction contract on behalf of Defendant B, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant C entered into the instant timber construction contract as the agent of Defendant B, and rather, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 4, Defendant C entered into the instant timber construction contract with Defendant C as the party. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s right of representation and expression agency’s assertion are without merit. 2) Next, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant B is the employer of the instant timber construction contract, and there is no evidence to prove that Defendant C is the employer of the instant timber construction contract.